Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003422

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/64748/2023
LP/08928/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 11th of December 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HARIA

Between

HO
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Mohzam, Counsel instructed by CB Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr J Nappey Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 November 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

Anonymity
1. The FtTJ made an anonymity order, and no grounds were submitted during the hearing for such an order to be discharged. In the circumstances, I have taken into account the starting point for consideration of anonymity orders is the principle of open justice and find that in this case because the appellant claims a risk of persecution on return to Iraq, in the circumstances the obligations of the United Kingdom (UK) under the Refugee Convention outweighs the principle of open justice and an anonymity order is appropriate.
Background
2. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (hereinafter referred to as the “FtTJ”) who dismissed the appellant’s protection and human rights appeal in a decision promulgated on 26 June 2025.
3. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq of Kurdish ethnicity. Since the parties know the detail of the appellant’s asylum claim, I need not set it out but summarise it very briefly. The basis of the appellant’s claim is that he was engaged in an illicit romantic relationship with a woman named P. The appellant’s proposals to marry P were rejected on three occasions by her family. After P fell pregnant, she eloped with the appellant, and they lived in isolation on a farm for two years. During that time, they were married by an Imam and had two children. P’s father according to the appellant is a leader of a tribe and P’s paternal uncle a high-ranking member of the PUK. After two years the appellant fearing P’s family fled Iraq with P and their two children. The appellant was separated from his family after arriving in Turkey and appellant arrived in the UK on his own on 9 November 2021 and claimed asylum on the same day.
4. Although the respondent accepted the appellant’s nationality and identity the respondent did not accept that the appellant had engaged in an illicit relationship with P, and that the appellant was of adverse interest to the P’s family and the Iranian authorities.
5. The FtTJ agreed with the respondent and dismissed the appeal.
6. Permission to appeal was sought and permission was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Bowen on all grounds. The grounds in summary assert:

a. The FtTJ failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the core narrative of the appellant’s claim that on account of his relationship with P he would be at risk of honour related harm.
b. The FtTJ’s unsafe credibility findings in relation to the appellant’s account infect the conclusions on redocumentation.
The Hearing
7. The hearing was held in a hybrid format. Mr Mozam who appeared for the appellant joined by video link and Mr Nappey who appeared for the respondent was present in the Tribunal hearing room at Field House. I was present in the Tribunal Hearing room at Field House. I am satisfied there were no technical difficulties during the hearing and the parties were able to engage fully in the hearing.
8. I heard oral submissions from both representatives. Mr Mozam relied on grounds drafted by Mr Brown of Kenworthy’s Chambers which he submitted were comprehensive. Mr Nappey stated that although there was no Rule 24 response, the respondent opposed the appeal. At the end of the hearing, I reserved my judgment.
Findings and reasons
9. I have considered the FtTJ’s decision with great care and exercised appropriate judicial restraint. I appreciate judicial restraint should be exercised when examining the reasons for the decision given by a FtTJ and that I should not assume too readily that the FtTJ misdirected himself simply because not every step in his reasoning is fully set out. This is the guidance given by the Court of Appeal at paragraph [77] of KM v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 693.
10. I remind myself that the First-tier Tribunal is an expert tribunal. The decisions of FtTJs should be respected unless it is quite clear that they have misdirected themselves in law. Appellate courts and tribunals should not rush to find such misdirection simply because they might have reached a different conclusion on the facts or expressed themselves differently.
11. The representatives submitted and I agree that the second ground is parasitic on the first ground.
12. The first ground asserts that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s core narrative that on account of his relationship with P he would be at risk of honour related harm.
13. The challenge to the FtTJ’s decision is based on inadequacy of reasons. The leading authority on what constitutes an error of law remains R (Iran) & Others v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 982. At [13]-[14] of the judgment of Brook LJ, emphasised that reasons must be sufficiently detailed to show the principles on which a decision was made. Reasons need not be elaborate, and it is not necessary to address every argument presented by the parties.
14. There is a legal duty to provide a brief explanation of the conclusions on the central issues on which the appeal is to be determined Shizad (sufficiency of reasons: set aside) [2013] UKUT 00085 (IAC).
15. The parties in the Appeal Skeleton Argument (ASA) and Respondent’s Review identified five “principal controversial issues” in advance of the hearing which included the following:

(i) “Would the Appellant’s relationship with his wife be seen as illicit?
(ii) Is the Appellant at risk of an honour-based crime due to his marriage to [P]?”
16. I accept Mr Nappey’s submission that contrary to what is asserted in the grounds at paragraph 5, the respondent’s refusal decision does explicitly state the respondent does not accept the appellant was in an illicit relationship with P.
17. Mr Nappey submitted that the FtTJ’s decision does not explicitly state whether the relationship between P and the appellant is accepted. However, Mr Nappey very fairly submitted that this omission was not material as on a reading of the decision as a whole it is clear the FtTJ does not accept the relationship and the FtTJ makes various adverse credibility findings.
18. This appeal was managed on the online platform. The Upper Tribunal in TC (PS compliance - “Issues-based reasoning”) Zimbabwe [2023] UKUT 00164 (IAC) gave the following guidance on decisions in the First-tier Tribunal:
“FTT decisions should begin by setting out the issues in dispute. This is clearly the proper approach to appeals under the online reform procedure where at each major stage there is a requirement to condense the parties’ positions in a clear, coherent and concise ‘issues-based’ manner.”
19. It is well established that the reasons for a decision must be adequate and enable the reader to understand what conclusions were reached on the “principal controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved.
20. Although the FtTJ in the decision does not expressly set out the issues as identified by the parties, it is clear the FtTJ was aware of the issues and had at the forefront of his mind the appellant’s claim that he had an illicit relationship with P. At [2] the FtTJ sets out the background to the appellant’s claim and at [3] the FtTJ notes the respondent did not accept the appellant was in an illicit relationship with P and that her family or authorities meant her harm. At [5] the FtTJ sets out an extract from the respondent’s refusal which raises various credibility issues.
21. The FtTJ from [9] to [13] sets out the oral evidence heard at the hearing. The FtTJ at [15] records the documentary evidence taken into account including various photos, information from the internet and text messages.
22. The FtTJ at [19] states that he does not accept the core of the appellant’s account having considered the appellant’s claims “…individually and in the round” and he does not accept the appellant has established he was ever actively persecuted by P’s family or anyone else. The FtTJ at [21] to [24] sets out his reasons as follows:

a. the appellant has not adequately dealt with the various credibility points raised by the respondent [21],
b. the FtTJ finds it incredible that the appellant would persevere with his various marriage proposals to P’s family given their animosity towards him including being threatened by her family and attacked by her family’s bodyguards [21],
c. the FtTJ finds it is not credible that the appellant would allow P to fall pregnant and then elope with her given the appellant’s account that P’s family is so powerful and the animosity of P’s family towards the appellant [21],
d. the FtTJ finds that if P’s family were as powerful and influential as the appellant suggests it is not credible that the appellant and P could live safely “…for so long…” on a farm only 25 minutes away from where P’s family lived and where the appellant worked and P gave birth to two children [22],
e. the FtTJ finds it is not credible that the Iman who was a local person would have agreed to marry the appellant and P if as the appellant alleges P’s family were powerful well know figures in the local area [23], and
f. the FtTJ gives little weight to the photos downloaded from the internet and the texts as the identity of the persons referred to and their supposed connections to P is unclear [24].
23. Instead of identifying what factual issues were in dispute between the parties, the FtTJ in this case asks only whether the appellant’s account is credible. That formulation is misconceived. Credibility is not itself a factual or legal issue in dispute. Rather, credibility is part of the evaluative reasoning when deciding whether a specific factual proposition is established on the evidence, to the required standard.
24. Even if some or most aspects of the appellant’s evidence are found to be incredible, that does not justify a wholesale rejection of the entire account. In protection claims, adverse findings on parts of the evidence must not be generalised to all aspects of the claim. The judge must still assess the intrinsic likelihood of the material elements of the claim, applying the applicable standard of proof. Adverse findings on certain aspects of evidence do not justify a rejection of the entire account; each material element must be assessed separately to the applicable standard of proof.
25. The Upper Tribunal in MK (duty to give reasons) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 00641 (IAC) provides the following guidance:
“If a tribunal finds oral evidence to be implausible, incredible or unreliable or a document to be worth no weight whatsoever, it is necessary to say so in the determination and for such findings to be supported by reasons. A bare statement that a witness was not believed or that a document was afforded no weight is unlikely to satisfy the requirement to give reasons.”
26. I appreciate it is not necessary for FtTJ to make findings by going through all the evidence line by line, it is however necessary for the FtTJ to make findings on the “principal controversial issues” giving reasons for these findings.
27. The findings made by the FtTJ at [24] about the photos and texts are entirely correct as the photos are screen shots from the internet and there is no evidence other than the appellant’s own evidence that the persons in the photos are related to P as claimed. These are findings that were open to the FtTJ on the evidence. Similarly, the FtTJ gives adequate reasons for the findings at [22] and [23]. These are findings that were open to the Judge on the evidence and the FtTJ gives adequate reasons for these findings.
28. Although the FtTJ sets out the appellant’s oral evidence and gives some reasons for his findings at [21], there is no engagement by the FtTJ with the appellant’s oral evidence or the explanations given by the appellant in his witness statement of 14 August 2024 (at paragraphs 44 to 51) to the various credibility points raised by the respondent. Consequently, the FtTJ does not explain why the reasons given by the appellant have been rejected.
29. The duty to identify the controversial issues and give sufficient reasons to entitle the parties to understand how those issues have been resolved ultimately rests with the FtTJ. In this appeal the parties identified the issues, but the FtTJ has failed to make findings on key issues and this amounts to a material legal error infecting the entire decision.
30. Accordingly, I find although the FtTJ rejects the credibility of the appellant’s account he fell into error by failing to make explicit findings on two of “principal controversial issues” identified by the parties and noted at paragraph 15 above.
31. As stated above ground two of the application for permission is parasitic on ground one. I find the judge erred as asserted in both grounds. The errors are such that decision must be set aside.
Disposal
32. I am mindful of the Court of Appeal case of AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512.
33. I have also taken into account the guidance in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC) that the usual course is for the Upper Tribunal to remake the decision even if it requires further findings to be made.
34. Given the extent of material errors within the Judge’s decision, I find it necessary to set aside the whole decision without any preserved findings. For that reason, whilst I have discretion to retain the re-making in the Upper Tribunal, I find that the extent of fact-finding means that it is necessary to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for the decision to be re-made pursuant to section 12(2)(b)(i) of the 2007 Act.
Notice of Decision

The decision involved the making of errors of law.
The decision is to be re-made by any judge of the First-tier Tribunal other than the Judge.

N Haria
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Haria
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

9 December 2025